Web Geniuses Or Web Dimwits?

ScribeCity writes "The Washington Post has a provocative piece about online experiments at identifying experts. One wonders when someone will come up with a truly effective formula for measuring human intelligence — or take a stab at doing so — that exploits all the stuff people are publishing online." From the article: "This wisdom of the crowd could be outsmarted by what Michael Arrington, editor of the TechCrunch blog, recently dubbed the 'wisdom of the few.' Sites like PicksPal rely on input from the masses chiefly as a venue for auditioning prospective experts, on the theory that these virtuosos could provide even more accurate information and predictions than the crowd. 'If you figure out which ones did the best and get rid of the ones who have no idea, you'd do even better. Distill it down to the people who really know,' Arrington said."

Comments

Not a Bad Idea

[AKAImBatman]

There is a certain logic to this. How many times have "experts" told us screwy nonsense, and had lousy track records, and yet the public at large retained them as experts? Sometimes, the untrained may be able to see things that the supposedly well-trained can't.

Or to put it another way, it all becomes a set of probabilities. If person X has guessed the outcome of something (say, a football game) correctly 80% of the time, then you're safer betting on his predictions than you are betting on expert Y who is only correct 30% of the time. If you aggregate the probabilities and successes, you should be able to develop a model with a high probability of being correct. You'll never be able to gain 100% accuracy, but that's just the nature of the Universe. ;)

Apply the same filtering to government elections

[c0d3h4x0r]

'If you figure out which ones did the best and get rid of the ones who have no idea, you'd do even better. Distill it down to the people who really know,' Arrington said.

I've always said that elections should qualify each voter's ballot to make sure the decision is made by the people who are best equipped to decide. The first page of a voting ballot should be a questionnaire that asks simple unbiased questions that require the voter to demonstrate knowledge of who or what they are voting on. "What does candidate X say their stance is on abortion?" "When did you first hear about initiative I-456?" "Please specify which political party each candidate below belongs to", etc. The score a voter gets on their questionnaire would then be used as a "weight" factor when counting their ballot, so that people who know the candidates and the issues better get more of a say, which is clearly how things ought to be.

That's why I read at +5 and use friends

[davidwr]

1) Read old threads at +5, new threads at +2

2) If a person has a lot of insightful/informative posts, check their posting history

3) If they are consistently +3/4/5 informative/insightful, add them as a friend

4) add points to friend's posts so they start out +2.

OK, seriously, I don't do that but if I did, I'd see posts of "wise ones" and ignore posts from those that don't make the cut.

Different "intelligences"

[blueZ3]

My mother is a professor of education at a college in California and this is something that educators have been talking about for a long while. Google for "multiple intelligences" for a lot more information, but basically there's a theory that says that "intelligence" can be divided up into a number of categories and that people tend to excell in one or two of these areas, but few are outstanding in all of them.

The standard breakdown is something like:

• Linguistic intelligence
• Logical-mathematical intelligence
• Spatial intelligence
• Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence
• Musical intelligence
• Interpersonal intelligence
• Intrapersonal intelligence
• Naturalist intelligence

Atheletes tend to excell at Spatial and Kinesthetic, while the stereotypical geek is strongest in Logical-mathematical and weakest in Interpersonal.

I'm not sure I completely agree that this is the end-all-be-all for understanding intelligence, but it does provide an interesting look into ways to classify people who might not be "book smart." For instance, a terrific ballerina might not have excellent Interpersonal or Linguistic intelligence, but she certainly has some special "intelligence" that allows her to excell in an area where I would certainly be an abject failure.

I encourage anyone interested in this idea of multiple intelligences to poke around and do some research. Again, it may not be the final answer, but it provides an interesting framework for thinking about the topic.

Re:Different "intelligences"

[porcupine8]

The problem is, this theory has been around for over 20 years (Howard Gardner's "Frames of Mind" in the mid-80s) but in that time, there has been zero empirical evidence for it. Whereas theories based on "g", or the general factor of intelligence that IQ tests *try* to measure (but do so with varying levels of accuracy) has about a century of pretty solid data behind it.

Re:Different "intelligences"

[Anonymous Coward]

The biggest problem with this categorization is that it's simply politically correct nonsense. Unfortunately, some people are overly swayed by the positive connotations of the word "intelligence" to the point that they think you can have no human value if you're not "intelligent". Gifted athletically, even if you're not smart? You must be "bodily-kinesthetically intelligent". Talented musican or artist? You must be "musically intelligent" or "chromo-visio-spatially intelligent". The word "intelligence" gets smeared around so many different categories that it loses any meaning beyond more general words like "talent" or "ability".

The problem here isn't that intelligence tests don't let musicians score well. IQ tests measure what they measure just fine. The problem is the value system of people that want so badly for everyone to be "intelligent" that they have to change the definition of the word.

The correct response is to realize that intelligence simply isn't all that. (I know this point will be a tough sell on Slashdot, where intelligence is particularly valued.) It's perfectly ok not to be "intelligent", and play to your other strengths.

Identifying those strengths and weaknesses is important in being able to choose activities in which you'll be successful, or at the very least in being realistic about the extra hurdles you're going to face. There's a reason I didn't become a musician or an NBA star, and it wasn't lack of "intelligence". That, I manage just fine, but I'm sadly lacking in other talents that people value. However, the self-esteem-uber-alles crowd picked the word "intelligence" to glorify, rather than say "athleticism", which is why people are trying to force-fit abilities into names like "bodily-kinesthetic intelligence" instead of pounding the round peg into the square hole and trying to console me that I have "mental athleticism" or "cerebral coordination".

If you call his tail a leg, how many legs does a three-legged dog have?

Re:Different "intelligences"

[porcupine8]

The correct response is to realize that intelligence simply isn't all that. (I know this point will be a tough sell on Slashdot, where intelligence is particularly valued.) It's perfectly ok not to be "intelligent", and play to your other strengths.

Absolutely. Creativity and motivation have been shown to have as much of an effect on a person's success (however you want to define it) in many areas as intelligence. Having low or high intelligence has certain things that come along with it, but it's not the end-all and be-all of your life - it means certain things are more or less likely, but it doesn't make any absolute statements.

Re:Wisdom of the crowds

[Sean0michael]

Exactly. Having a pool of experts does not mean you will have a better outcome. The odds of any one expert being correct every time are very slim. But the odds of a group being correct every time are actually better. For those that watch the football announcers (our experts) make predictions about who will win today, they disagree and none have perfect records. But when it comes to predicting spreads, the guys controlling how many points one team will win by are much more accurate because a large number of people, all with private knowledge and information plus sharing some general knowledge, all weigh in on the outcome. This diverse group (which includes experts) generally gets the correct spread (if they don't, the sports gambler in charge is losing lots of money).

Experts are great, and their knowledge is valuable. But in making certain kinds of decisions, it is better to tap into the Wisdom of Crowds.