Re: SD2 vs. Condorcet: Issues / Surowiecki
Mark parashakti108 at yahoo.com
Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:46:35 -0000
--"denis bider" wrote:
> > -M: Condorcet is still in-degree based, therefore it is
still "Joe Sixpack" based.
>D: This is the core argument about which I am not yet quite sure.
See, suppose you have a problem with possible solutions A, B, C, D,
and you have the two approaches I stated in my previous email to this
list: 1. Everyone ranks the four solutions in their order of
preference, and the solution that will yield the highest level of
satisfaction is chosen according to Condorcet / CSSD.
-M: So far, this is a *first order* approach. This lacks the depth of
>D: 2. Everyone enumerates a number of people that they think are
competent to solve the problem, or know someone who is, and the
results are ranked according to SD-2 to produce a number
of "experts". The selected few then decide for either one of A, B, C
or D. Now, suppose that method 1 would show that the solution
yielding the highest level of people-satisfaction is C. Suppose now
that the experts also choose C. In this case, methods 1 and 2 are
equivalent. But suppose the experts choose D. Question 1:
-M: All of this is SD2 complient. If SD2 selected directors want to
play with Condorcet, this is fine with me.
>D: Is it acceptable for experts to choose a solution which is NOT a
solution which would yield the highest level of satisfaction among
people; in this case, method C?
-M: Who says that the people's choice would produce the greatest
level of satisfaction? This is only what the people would PREDICT
would produce the greatest level of satisfaction. In the French
Revolution, the people predicted that direct-democracy would produce
the greatest satisfaction - they were WRONG and this led to the Blood-
bath. Fortunately, we have a real-world by which to test our ideas.
Denis, please ditch these populist feelings.
>D: Question 2: But, then again: would method 1 have led to the
choice of method C, if the people had known that the experts would
have chosen method D? Perhaps people would then go with the opinion
of the experts, and choose method D?
-M: Only the experts should decide. They are accountable, the people
>D: Question 3: But even if the people had chosen method D if they
knew that's what the experts were going to choose: would that have
been the correct choice? Is it actually true, at all, that experts
make decisions which are more correct than the decisions made by
masses when an appropriate aggregation algorithm is chosen? Research
leads [me]to believe the masses will be consistently correct much
more reliably than individual experts.
-M: I haven't heard of this research. If the masses are more
consistently correct than the "experts", then those "experts" aren't
real experts. SD2 is designed to find the real experts.
-M: How about comparing the experts of the American Revolution like
Franklin and Hamiltion, and compare this with the people, like the
Jacobin Mobs of the French Revolution?
>D: Research further leads to believe that a large, diverse group of
experts(not 5 directors, but 100 or more), whose choice is aggregated
with a suitable algorithm on an in-degree basis, might be more
consistently correct than a smaller number of top experts. This is
because perception of expertise in one's own and others' eyes tends
to be unrealistically exaggerated compared to the actual substance of
the expertise. There is further no reason to believe that, in
additional iterations of SD-2, this bias would be self-correcting.
Quite the opposite is likely. The source of this viewpoint is James
Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds.
-M: With SD2, the directors would be encouraged to use large bodies
of advisors and non-voting representitives. Think of the directors as
being the trustworthy and accountable generalists. They would call in
the specialists. I do think that PageRank would deselect for
overconfident directors, so I do think that bias would be self-
correcting, and this is testable.
-M: Thanks Denis, I will check out Surowiecki.
-Mark, Seattle WA USA