More Evidence the Crowd isn’t so Smart

Swiss researchers have found that, while the “Wisdom of the Crowd” is usually a real phenomenon and not a sarcastic misnomer, the introduction of a feedback loop (knowing how other members of the crowd are behaving) impacts the efficacy of crowd sourcing. The Wall Street Journal reports (emphasis added):

The researchers gathered 144 Swiss college students, sat them in isolated cubicles, and then asked them to answer various questions, such as the number of new immigrants living in Zurich. In many instances, the crowd proved correct. When asked about those immigrants, for instance, the median guess of the students was 10,000. The answer was 10,067.

The scientists then gave their subjects access to the guesses of the other members of the group. As a result, they were able to adjust their subsequent estimates based on the feedback of the crowd. The results were depressing. All of a sudden, the range of guesses dramatically narrowed; people were mindlessly imitating each other. Instead of canceling out their errors, they ended up magnifying their biases, which is why each round led to worse guesses. Although these subjects were far more confident that they were right—it’s reassuring to know what other people think—this confidence was misplaced.

This is more evidence that investors should use their own valuations to drive their investment decision-making process, rather than starting with the market price (e.g. relative valuation, swing trading, etc).

Read the WSJ article here.

Talk to Frank about this study

No related posts.

  • Anonymous

    I’m not sure I agree with your concluding statement. This article says that the crowd is good at coming to an estimate when each member of the crowd operates in isolation and its guesses are aggregated; when the crowd is aware of each other the estimate collapses. That’s not the same as saying that an individual should ignore everything and stick to her own guess. 

    To take the Zurich immigrant population in the pull quote: the crowd had sufficient variety in its answers to be able to “find” the right number but also to cancel out spurious numbers too. So maybe (and I’m making numbers up here) somebody in the crowd guessed 100,000 but a hundred people guessed 0, when the rest guessed between 8,000 and 12,000 the “right” number fell out.So if you come up with a valuation as an individual and in isolation, there is no crowd effect. You might be the individual that guessed 100,000 or one who guessed 0, either of which would have been much worse than paying attention to market signals would have indicated. Perhaps the best approach would be to have a club of anonymous value investors each make a valuation call and the club then acts on the aggregated result. 

    • Anonymous

      Hi Bill

      I like your point, but in the absence of many people making blind (unbiased
      by the crowd) valuation calls, the individual investor has the option of
      either reaching their own conclusions in isolation, or somehow using the
      existing market price, which is biased by the crowd, which the study shows
      will be biased because participants know what others are guessing. I would
      stand by the conclusion that the best choice would be do come to your own
      valuations. Especially since the current market price is arrived at via
      participants with different time horizons, investment strategies, etc, which
      may not be indicative of the value that an individual would have (i.e. one
      of the key advantages of value investors is ‘time arbitrage’ which isn’t
      reflected in the current market price).

      Thoughts?

      Frank Voisin

      • Anonymous

        Hi Frank,

        I think you put it well here and I pretty much agree with you. Take your own view, get conviction on it. If the crowd sees it much differently either you’ve missed something big or else there’s a trading opportunity. I think the wisdom of the crowds stuff is overblown generally: it takes a special kind of crowd, one that doesn’t have to much a priori interaction, to come to robust decision making. That’s why I thought the club of independent value investors would be an interesting approach. 

        Bill