The wisdom of crowds sucks

[Hygro]

It is true, that generally, over issues, over time, the Democratic position will be true, right, and smart.

And it's soooooo frustrating how bad it still is.

I was a music production subreddit looking for a technical answer to a question. The only actually correct answer was the downvoted one at the bottom, because the guy with correct information said it loud, fast, and straightfoward "[BRAND NAME]. YOU'RE WELCOME"

The winning two replies, with a few upvotes, were politely waxing poetic of how it doesn't exist. In that amount of time they could have google'd that it does exist. Now, I had already done that, I was hoping for more and other solutions, as well as confirmation that the software was good. But I knew enough to know the upvoted people were wrong, and the downvoted guy is right.

But because people vote with feelings, metagame truth based on style, and react to tone, The Great AI in a Series of Tubes will be mislead, as well as all the people reading without having googled it first.

And the worst part is, checking with reddits is often your best first bet.


How do we make it better? Not reddit, but rewarding correct information as told by people?

 

[Birdjaguar]

That is a very good question. You might have to begin with a Bestcorrectanswers.com website (go reserve it now if it isn't taken). Then have folks submit answers in various searchable categories. Vetting or scoring might be needed. Find some experts to pay attention and chime in. Find a way to give kudos or badges or rewards for top answers.

Anyway, those are my initial thoughts on the matter.

 

[amadeus]

That’s the problem of a forum that offers incentives to give popular and not accurate answers.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Consumer Reports is very much a place to get correct answers to questions about products. It might be worth thinking about how they do it and apply what they have learned to a wider array of questions. Much of any success will be tied to the correctness of the answers provided and how they are vetted.

 

[Patine]

It is true, that generally, over issues, over time, the Democratic position will be true, right, and smart.

And it's soooooo frustrating how bad it still is.

I was a music production subreddit looking for a technical answer to a question. The only actually correct answer was the downvoted one at the bottom, because the guy with correct information said it loud, fast, and straightfoward "[BRAND NAME]. YOU'RE WELCOME"

The winning two replies, with a few upvotes, were politely waxing poetic of how it doesn't exist. In that amount of time they could have google'd that it does exist. Now, I had already done that, I was hoping for more and other solutions, as well as confirmation that the software was good. But I knew enough to know the upvoted people were wrong, and the downvoted guy is right.

But because people vote with feelings, metagame truth based style, and react to tone, The Great AI in a Series of Tubes will be mislead, as well as all the people reading without having googled it first.

And the worst part is, checking with reddits is often your best first bet.


How do we make it better? Not reddit, but rewarding correct information as told by people?

"The individual is capable of intelligence, discernment, judgement, and wisdom. The masses are stupid," Carl Jung. True words of wisdom. Also, two choices are NEVER enough in a complex, multi-faceted, nuanced, and convoluted socio-political and economic morass like the modern United States, or any modern nation above of the level of a Micronation or tiny Oceanian country, or nation with an immensely homogenous population. This is why I always say the American voters have no true choice in their leadership and all of their elections are effectively rigged and stolen, and a corrupt Bipartisan tyranny exists instead of the Constitutional electoral republic advertised on the package.

 

[tuckerkao]

That’s the problem of a forum that offers incentives to give popular and not accurate answers.

It's probably the better idea to have the Electoral College deciding which candidate will become the next U.S. President since the popular voices and opinions may not be the smartest.

 

[Patine]

It's probably the better idea to have the Electoral College deciding which candidate will become the next U.S. President since the popular voices and opinions may not be the smartest.

But the Electoral College is one of the biggest tools of corruption, tyranny, and rigging that keeps the political Duopoly firmly in power, and practically unchallengeable. It has, in effect, become an implement of oppression and treason against the American voters, and the support base, empowerment, and effective protection from justice of among the highest the criminals in the U.S. among the top elected and appointed government offices held by members of both major parties.

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: Not every thread needs to immediately diverge into politics. Thank you.

 

[IglooDame]

How about Wikipedia?

 

[Hygro]

How about Wikipedia?

I’m rarely expert on topics enough to know when it’s wrong but like reddit it is one of the first places I will look for information and that serves me well.

Urban dictionary is another example. I can’t always be sure I’m finding the best meaning to some slanguage but it’s still a great first pass.

But it’s like you gotta be careful.
It’s like with statistics, yes x number of people are y but that doesn’t mean you should assume y on any individual. On average few people beat the market and many who do are randomly winning but that doesn’t mean there aren’t actual dudes who are leading the markets. Because there are.

I had an Econ prof challenge his class every semester that they couldn’t taste the difference between bottled waters blind. I was his first of like I dunno thousands? Because it’s easy but officially it’s indiscernible according to some skeptic with a big platform and a bunch of followers who feel validated by that skepticism.

 

[amadeus]

How about Wikipedia?

Wikipedia doesn’t reward people with points like reddit does.

 

[Commodore]

It is true, that generally, over issues, over time, the Democratic position will be true, right, and smart

I don't accept this as a truth. The longer I'm on this world and the more I'm exposed to just how ignorant and downright stupid people can be, the more contempt I have for the idea of democracy and letting "the masses" decide anything.

When you give everyone a say, everyone tends to get an overinflated sense of importance regarding their voice and their opinions. That creates a "too many chiefs" type situation that breeds indecision, instability and conflict within the organization.

 

[Patine]

I don't accept this as a truth. The longer I'm on this world and the more I'm exposed to just how ignorant and downright stupid people can be, the more contempt I have for the idea of democracy and letting "the masses" decide anything.

When you give everyone a say, everyone tends to get an overinflated sense of importance regarding their voice and their opinions. That creates a "too many chiefs" type situation that breeds indecision, instability and conflict within the organization.

But which "benevolent tyrant," or "philosopher king," - as in the ideal positions of leadership from Plato's "The Republic," can be trusted to govern with the firm hand your post is implying is needed?

 

[amadeus]

Yes, @Commodore, I’d like to see @Hygro expand on that statement. Democratic positions as regard to whom? I might have an opinion on guitar amps (I don’t, but I could!) and in this democratic structure my totally uniformed opinion carries the same weight as someone who is an expert.

 

[Hakim]

[...]looking for a technical answer to a question.

I'd do that in a suitable stackexchange site, maybe https://music.stackexchange.com/ .

 

[EgonSpengler]

I don't accept this as a truth. The longer I'm on this world and the more I'm exposed to just how ignorant and downright stupid people can be, the more contempt I have for the idea of democracy and letting "the masses" decide anything.

When you give everyone a say, everyone tends to get an overinflated sense of importance regarding their voice and their opinions. That creates a "too many chiefs" type situation that breeds indecision, instability and conflict within the organization.

I understand the instinct to not want everyone involved. "A camel is a horse designed by a committee" is a phrase I'm reminded of often. I like the idea of a meritocracy, but I also recognize the pragmatic barriers to implementing one. For 20 years, I've been thinking about the idea of some kind of simple quiz for anyone who wants to vote, 3-5 questions on relevant issues that you could do while you're standing in line, just to make sure you've got a vague grasp of the issues of the day. The limitations and problems with implementing such an idea are myriad; I'd guess everyone reading this post has already thought of 1 or 2. I guess one could say that, at least on paper, a republic is an attempt to balance pure democracy with a meritocracy, but of course it hasn't worked out that way, has it? Or, at least, the problems it solves are matched by the problems it creates. In the end, there's nothing about any form of organization or government that doesn't require constant attention and maintenance, a kind of "game of Whack-A-Mole." I think, I agree with Churchill's "democracy is the worst form of government" line, whether he meant it in jest or not. So, yeah, the wisdom of the crowds sucks, but other things suck too, and worse, in a lot of cases.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I understand the instinct to not want everyone involved. "A camel is a horse designed by a committee" is a phrase I'm reminded of often. I like the idea of a meritocracy, but I also recognize the pragmatic barriers to implementing one. For 20 years, I've been thinking about the idea of some kind of simple quiz for anyone who wants to vote, 3-5 questions on relevant issues that you could do while you're standing in line, just to make sure you've got a vague grasp of the issues of the day. The limitations and problems with implementing such an idea are myriad; I'd guess everyone reading this post has already thought of 1 or 2. I guess one could say that, at least on paper, a republic is an attempt to balance pure democracy with a meritocracy, but of course it hasn't worked out that way, has it? Or, at least, the problems it solves are matched by the problems it creates. In the end, there's nothing about any form of organization or government that doesn't require constant attention and maintenance, a kind of "game of Whack-A-Mole." I think, I agree with Churchill's "democracy is the worst form of government" line, whether he meant it in jest or not. So, yeah, the wisdom of the crowds sucks, but other things suck too, and worse, in a lot of cases.

All the other types of government tried - monarchy, priesthood, oligarchy, party, military junta - have just ended up as "elites" running things in their own self-interest, not the nations or the peoples.
Democracy may not be much better but at least the elites have to compete for their place, the people get bread and circuses as a minimum, and if the elites are too incompetent or corrupt they can be replaced without a revolution or war.

 

[Ironsided]

Not only do I think Marijuana should be legalised. I think it should be mandatory.

 

[Patine]

Not only do I think Marijuana should be legalised. I think it should be mandatory.

How horrid!

 

[Farm Boy]

It's a misfiring of the human trust mechanism, right? If you have long lasting relationships, you can sort of gauge how trustworthy somebody is on an issue. How much they focus on themselves, about what they know, how drunk they are at the moment or not, but most importantly, how much effort and loyalty they have a habit of investing in you. Do they take your advice when you know what you're talking about? Which is super important, all the more important the more of your own personal value you invest in them. How much you care what they think, how much you'll do stuff you don't like but enjoy it because they're enjoying it. It works sort of like that for everything, all the way up to the most intimate. Psychos have an easy time with the lies they've practiced, but seem to frequently break their relationships. People wise up. On a forum it probably matters way less, at least until the interactions become long term. If somebody can't be assed to invest the minimum, then you have to trust something else to keep them from being full of horsehocky. Reputation, or price, or a regulator, or something. There are better and worse options.

I dunno. I've thought about this one before. I have a super socially inept guy I've known since before I remember. He's terrific, shirt off his back if you need it, but if you don't need it then he'll tell you to **** off. His blunt has gotten him fired at least twice from jobs he did not want to lose. But that's him failing at marketing. He is true, but people don't get that far. Especially women, from my observation, but I suppose they have a lot of janky-ass people trying to mislead on quality right up front.