Crowds v Experts

The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations, by James Surowiecki is based on work that the author did as a columnist for The New Yorker.

Many of Surowiceki's arguments seem counter-intuitive, but he cites a fair amount of evidence that the best decisions, on average, are always made by groups rather than individuals regardless of their expertise. In fact, he says: "... the more power you give a single individual in the face of complexity and uncertainty, the more likely it is that bad decisions will get made."
For the group decision-making process to work the best, several elements must be present.

1. A formal process for encouraging disagreement must be present;

2. The group must consist of stakeholders and non-stakeholders, i.e., people normally not part of the group should be present to make sure diversity of opinion is present. Diversity guarantees that multiple perspectives are brought into the decision-making process and that a broader range of information is included;

3. the group must belief and see that it has the responsibility for making decisions. If the decision is made elsewhere, the result is the opposite, i.e., bad results or at least not the best;

4. individuals be independent and have that independence respected to avoid being swayed by a leader or one powerful individual,

5. and there be a process for aggregating the opinions. It's important that pressure to conform be suppressed.

An intelligent group does not ask of its individual members to conform to the dominant view. Instead it creates a mechanism that resembles a democracy or a market. Individual group members get the opportunity to bring in their own information and opinions and are not forced to change their views. Their independence must be explicitly protected.

The first half, or so, of the book is theory (sounds dry, but it's really quite fascinating) followed by some case studies.

The Virtues of Selfishness

Ayn Rand was not afraid of turning conventional wisdom on its head. For millennia, one of the few ethical principles that prevailed across cultures was the value of altruism, i.e. , giving up your life for the benefit of others. Rubbish, writes Rand in The Virtue of Selfishness.

Rand was as anti-community and pro-individual as anyone I have ever read. Adamantly opposed to coercive state and religious power, she built a philosophy, Objectivism, on rational thinking and reason. She became too dogmatic and rigid for my taste in later years; nevertheless, she has some very interesting things to say.

"Every human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others and therefore, man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself." I find this statement profound in its implications; if it were to be adopted everywhere, wars would cease. It's only because we have bought into the principle of sacrificing oneself for the greater good that armies can survive, yet the reason is so others can accumulate or obtain what you should be able to.

In her philosophy, the happiness of the individual is paramount. Religious types will find her philosophy more than unsettling, because as an atheist, she values the present and current life above everything else. Whether you like her or not, several of the essays are well worth the time to read, particularly "Collectivized Rights" and "Man's Rights." One's gut response is to say that she has rejected charity and helping others. Not at all. It's just that helping others should not be at one's own expense, e.g., spending a fortune to cure one's wife of a disease because the wife is important to oneself would fit nicely into her worldview. Love is entirely selfish.

An important book no matter where you stand.

Maigret and DeKok

As a teenager in Switzerland, I discovered George Simenon's Maigret series. These police procedurals took place in Paris and featured the unflappable and compassionate Inspector (later Superintendent) Maigret, who had this wonderful relationship with his wife, enjoyed the requisite alcoholic moments in French bars and cafes, yet through his intimate knowledge of the community always solved the crime, no matter how bizarre. I read every Maigret I could find.

Several weeks ago, I stumbled on a reference to A.C. Baantjer, whose Inspector DeKok novels are wildly popular in the Netherlands. Most have been translated into English, but have gone out of print. I hopped on to Amazon and bought a couple for ridiculously low prices, e.g.,$1.50 and lower, read them, and have become an enthusiast. DeKok reminds me of Maigret. He tolerates, but understand the needs of his superiors, prefers the old methods, knows the community, patiently explains things to Vledder, his assistance, and intrepidly collects data until he has the solution. Like Maigret, he has his little peculiarities: a winning smile, felt hat, is always whistling Christmas carols off-key, and interminable patience.

In DeKok and the Dead Harlequin he is presented with a most peculiar situation: a note is delivered to him by an accountant, Pierre Brassel, who insist on meeting with him at exactly 8:00 a.m. on the following morning to discuss a murder he intends to commit. While at DeKok's office Brassel mentions that a man has been murdered at a nearby hotel. Sure enough, it is soon established that Jan Brets, a well-known burglar, had his head bashed in with a hockey stick while Brassel was talking with the inspector. DeKok is soon faced with a myriad of interlocking pieces to a puzzle that at first appears my be the perfect crime.

If you are looking for lots of guns and violence, these are not for you, but if you enjoy well-crafted police procedurals with human characters, they are perfect. Check your library or Alibris.com or Amazon.com

Meanwhile we piss away billions in Iraq

Infrastructure Report Card 2005

I urge you to read this report from the American Society of Civil Engineers. Far more scary than terrorism. The role of government is to build and maintain infrastructure and our government is failing us miserably.

Sara Paretsky's Heart-breaking Letter to her Grandmother

Paretsky, author of several P.I. novels, has an article in the latest issue of The Illinois Brief, a publication of the Illinois chapter of the ACLU (of which I am a proud member - only commies and America-haters don't belong to the ACLU.) She recalls the story of her grandmother who sailed past the Statue of Liberty as a child, fleeing Europe in 1911 from the threat of another pogrom. She recently finished a novel, Blacklist, that is set partially in the McCarthy Era, party "in the world of the Patriot Act." She receives all sorts of hate-mail still accuring her of support for terrorists.

In her short article she lists several incidents and comments from Europeans that make her reflect on freedom in the United States. I cite only a few. Read the article.

1. A man was arrested at St. Johns College in Santa Fe for making a negative comment about George Bush in a chat room. The staff of the college was placed under gag order preventing them from discussing the arrest.
2. A man in Germany remembers German support for the Nazis, a willingness to die for a cause that had plunged their nation into a ruinous war and destroyed its economy.
3. The US consul in Frankfurt Germany, site of a large US hospital, reported that from seventy-five to one hundred twenty casualties are flown in from Iraq every day, but the press is prohibited from filming wounded or coffins.
4. When George Bush spoke at Ohio State's commencement in 2002, protesters were threatened with expulsion (shades of LBJ and Vietnam.)
5. A library patron in Morristown, NJ was arrested for looking at foreign language pages on the web. He was held incommunicado for three days without being charged or allowed to call anyone.