Guys this is really mind blowing. I've studied statistics at school when i was young but i've never seen this with the curiosity and awareness that i've today at almost 40. Do you realize how this simple experiment opens up to interesting discussions about reality, consciousness, collective consciousness, and many other existential mysteries? This is a very underrated topic that should be taken more into consideration for its importance, imho.
Ten years on and it's still the best RU-vid vid on this fascinating subject. Thanks Marcus. Here's a thought experiment that occurred to me. Get a couple of dozen ordinary people to each shoot an arrow or gun or whatever as accurately as they can at a small spot of light projected on a barn door or similar. Afterwards switch the light off, and deduce where the target was just from the grouping of punctures. I'm pretty sure you'd be spot on just by finding their centre. Would this mean the crowd is collectively a better shot than the individual?
Just did something pretty cool. I estimated the radius as 6 jelly beans giving the surface area an average of about 113.7 jelly beans and guess that it was probably about 40 jelly beans deep just by closing my eyes and counting down imaginary. Turns out thats 4548... Wild.
you are an expert, someone who used math, logic, data, estimations, to come up with an answer. And an excellent answer indeed. An expert can sometimes match the crowd, or even beat it, but its rare indeed.
I wonder what the answer would be if outlier guesses were tossed. Or if people were given a 'hint' of what the crowd was roughly guessing. The 50,000 was way off the mark.
However, not to confuse 'the crowd,' with sensitivity, toward individual human beings...💜 (LoL,'72,' is the Earth's Ecliptic ! There are no ''coincidences,' to THAT !😂🤣🤗💜)
been done many times, I think the Grandmaster (if ranked high enough) is still better than the crowd combined. But at some ranking, the crowd would be better. If the expert is better in all facets of the game, he should win.
@@jamesrav You're probably right. I suspect that a crowd would not make the occasional incredible blunder that an individual would. Crowd members would still do so, but probably not all on the same move. But then they wouldn't make the occasional brilliant move either for the same reason.
@@chuckgaydos5387 i dont think its so much the crowd possibly making a blunder (I suppose its possible a group of amateurs up to expert could still majority vote on a bad move), but just that they would not majority 'see' the plan a super Grandmaster was undertaking, and would not be able to avoid it. I think this type of game was played during the early internet, when players could collaborate in real time via chat, rather than just suggest a move and take the majority vote. I think collaboration would create a 'sum is greater than the parts' situation, whereby the 'best' move would perhaps always be discovered and agreed upon by the group. That could possibly beat a very strong player, who *might* overlook something along the way. This scenario would best approximate 'wisdom of the crowd' being better than any single expert.
If you're going to respond to someone guessing 80,000 by surprisingly repeating "80,000?!!!" and allowing the person to take a second guess, then the whole experiment is utterly flawed to start with. This professor is mostly showing us how NOT to conduct a scientific experiment, which is a bloody shame.
outliers should probably be tossed. She took no time to guess and had no skin in the game. Charge her a small amount (if she guesses best, she wins a prize) and she might take more care in guessing.
The Betting Network. The #1 Sports Betting Community. Sports Bettors coming together sharing information all with the common goal of winning more bets and having fun doing it. Join today for free! www.thebettingnetwork.net/join2
Oh my.....artificial intelligence, accessing every bit of data ever generated by &/or about everybody on the planet will possess formidable predictive capabilities....which to the Artificial intelligence could justify arresting individuals for pre-crimes the AI has predicted.
Looks fraudulent (not entirely intentional, but still) incorrectly done experiment. Just look at how that woman obviously changed her initial answer based on the facial expression influence the leader of the experiment gave her.
I used this principle today to guess the weight of a pumpkin at a work event. The person to guess the weight correctly or guess closest to the actual weight won a $10 gift card. Pretty cool. There were only 17 guesses when i averaged and put my guess in. Even crazier is my guess was right on the money.
So, would the answer become more accurate with a larger number of guesses? Or worse with smaller group guessing? I go with more accuracy with more people. Thoughts?
I think that the number of people does make a difference. If we only take two guesses, for example, 400 and 50,000 then the average is 25200 (I know those guesses are outliers but it makes the point). If we graph the accuracy with the number of participants, I'd expect an s curve, but that's just a guess as well.
