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.
【视听版科学小组荣誉出品】
sway render the crowd incorrect statistical phenomenon wild guesses peers' answers
"偷看"的代价 如果你想知道一个罐子里有多少颗软糖豆，不妨去问问你的朋友们，然后平均一下他们的答案。一群人的猜测结果往往比一个人的猜测结果准确得多，只要他们没有相互偷看对方的结果的话。因为一项新的研究显示社会影响会左右一个人的评估，并认为大部分人是错的。该研究结果发表在《美国国家科学院院刊》上。[Jan Lorenz 等人, 社会影响降低群众智慧] 群众智慧事实上是一个统计现象。只要收集足够的猜测数据，瞎猜的数据自我抵消后就能能到更准确的答案。但是不要将心理学跟统计学混为一谈，要知道，其他人的想法并不能让你变得更聪明。 欧洲科学家们让志愿者们估计一些诸如瑞士人口密度的数据，每个人有五次猜测机会。有些人用其他人的答案，其他人都自己猜。结果证明偷看其他人答案的结果往往要重新猜测，因为这样缩小了该组的回答范围并让他们进入了一个误区。更糟的是，这些人知道其他人的答案后反而更加坚信他们是对的。由此可以看出，小小的数字里也有智慧，只要他们猜之前不要去偷看。