I don't agree, what we called experts are with years of experience who have handled closely similar problem. Many average people still need enlightenment from experts.

I don't agree, what we called experts are with years of experience who have handled closely similar problem. Many average people still need enlightenment from experts.

Sometimes yes, all the time no. the complexity of the problem plays a role in this.

They solve problems in the same way, because experts are also different groups of ordinary people working together:)

http://collectivescience.com/about.html

That all sounds nice, e.g. the wording symbiotic intelligence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Manhattan_Project_people&from=A

If you go through the above list, you will find no average people at all.

We have to distinguish between:

scientific problems (requiring sound expert knowledge)

and

human problems (requiring communicative competencies).

The dynamic, free and open interplay of these vital processes can better our real life situation.

__________________________

Science vs. collectivism:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/science.html

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/collectivism.html

To sum it up: I am not in favor of this statement.

It has no emprical foundation in (experimental) social psychology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzafer_Sherif

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autokinetic_effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_pressure

Sometimes it may happen as a miracle but not at all times. Its my thought or opinion.

Diverse expertise working together can solve pretty much everything.

Working as a team always brings positive results

No

I don't think there is any doubt that diversity has a "bottom line" effect on productivity and the quality of solutions to problems. An example is from Collective Genius where the authors deal with a concept they call "Creative Abrasion," where they state: "The two ingredients necessary for creative abrasion are intellectual diversity and intellectual conflict. (Hill, Brandeau, Truelove, and Lineback, 2014). Intellectual diversity can be sourced by insuring the people involved in problem-solving and decision making are, themselves, from diverse backgrounds and cultures.

The link between diversity and productivity is well established: "a powerful link has been established between human diversity and innovative capacity," (PSU, 2020)

The basis of your question however, is whether "diverse groups" are better at solving problems than "experts" would be. A better approach might be to assemble a diverse group of exerts to tackle the problems we are facing.

References:

Hill, L., Brandeau, G. Truelove, E. and Lineback, K. 2014. Collective Genius. The Harvard Business Review, June 2014.

The Pennsylvania State University, 2020. The Business Case for Diversity. Retrieved on February 18, 2020, from: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2042330/modules/items/28145968

Thank you for a detailed response and the rationale behind your response Nathalio Caplan

Do you by any chance, know what Hill, Brandeu, Truelove & Lineback based they conclusion on?

Thank you Mila Ilieva

"Experts are experts."

Thank you Ajibola Ibrahim Quadri Mohammed Ali Bait Ali Sulaiman Yousif Yaqoob Yousif Kaukab Abid Azhar Mothanna Sh. Aziz Barbara Sawicka Milon Selvam Dennison P. Contreras

Great question.

The formula for network entropy \eta = Clog(n), where C is a network’s clustering coefficient, and the log has a mean path length as base, helps answer the question.

C log(n) gives the network (collective) capacity for problem solving, R= \eta (n) r, where r is the average individual problem solving rate, for n brains capable of problem solving (all absent language, for simplicity's sake).

Since the base of the log is a mean, that implies that the answer to the question, "Diverse groups of average people, acting together, solve problems better than experts do." Do you agree? is, assuming an average problem, average people have more capacity to solve a problem (for a large network, much more capacity) than any single average individual has.

The important thing about the network is the role of averages.

To give an example: suppose a group of 100 average people in 1916 and a problem about gravity is presented to them. While it is true that collectively those 100 people have more problem solving capacity than any given single average person in the group, it is open to question whether the 100 average people, acting collectively, would have been able to arrive at the theory of general relativity.

In sum, if intended as a general statement, I disagree.

(Parts of this answer used ideas from articles in my Project on RG, theory of intelligence.)

The references cited are 1- an article written by them on the topic for the Harvard Business Review. The other material is from a Penn State Leadership class

This is exactly what modern politicians try to do.

Thank you for an equally interesting and thoughtful answer Robert Shour

Size, availability, diversity/dispersion of a collective unit has a bearing. Makes sense.

Under what circumstances would 1+1=3 then. As I understand the essence of your response, 1+1 could 1/2 or 1?

Thank you for a thoughtful response Stephen I. Ternyik

I agree that we should draw a distinction. There are problems that require specialists.

An expert will always be a person full of knowledge according to his field. a group of people can provide a good work but if they don't have the same skills or lack of knowledge, the results provided won't be efficient

Kheepe Moremi

You wrote: Under what circumstances would 1+1=3 then. As I understand the essence of your response, 1+1 could 1/2 or 1?

I will try to address your question, but I am not sure I have the gist.

The saying two heads are better than one implies that two diverse sets of knowledge and problem solving skills have more capacity to solve a problem than only one of the two heads. It is NOT the case however that 2 heads have twice the problem solving capacity of one head. Assuming, as I do, that network entropy Clog(n) can be used to calculate network capacity, then the capacity of two heads compared to one would by log(2) times as much, with the base of the logarithm as a mean path length. This logarithmic relationship is inherent in thermodynamic entropy as well. Energy distribution (and information distribution and problem solving capacities) scale they are not linear.

I hope that addresses your question.

Best to you.

Thank you for your contribution Robert Shour Chanez Maouche Vadim S. Gorshkov

In some cases

I think it makes a difference if the members of the small group are the ones directly affected by the problem. Community-based participatory research has been used effectively to explore problems within communities and come up with viable solutions. An "expert" may participate or facilitate the exploration of the issue. This approach builds on the strengths and resources of the community and involves empowering, power-sharing, and co-learning. The group has a vested interest in the outcome. The "expert" may have technical knowledge about an issue and can "partner" with the community, yet the answer may emanate from the group itself. This approach has been used successfully in public health and other fields.

Thank you for the community based participatory research perspective.

Thank you all; Patricia Maloof Mohammed Ali Bait Ali Sulaiman Robert Shour Chanez Maouche Vadim S. Gorshkov Stephen I. Ternyik Ajibola Ibrahim Quadri Nathalio Caplan Mila Ilieva

An expert is an expert. There is a reason why he is so referred. A bunch of inept people can never replace an expert. He still has to give his expert advice and guidance when consulted, because the expert must be consulted. It is like peer-review.

Thank you for your perspective Maurice Ekpenyong

Highly appreciated.

For authentic response experts and diversity are inseparable in terms of women, men, people with disabilities, and gender diverse persons (such as transgender binary and non-binary people).

This will provide you with gender dis-aggregated as indicated above rather than a single lens ?

I agree with the statement.

Thank you for your contributions Nirmala S.V.S.G Nonkosi Tyolwana

This is one of solving problem tools it is Brainstorming

Thank you for your contribution Ahmed Ali Alsayed

Diverse groups finding solutions depends on group motives. In the event the group has mob mentality then chances are their motives will be skewed by irrational thoughts. However when the diversity involves properly motivated people who are focused on good for the majority they are more likely to do a better job of solving issues through lived experiences as opposed to experts whose knowledge comes from literature instead of personal experience.

Thank you B.E.I. Johnson for a considered and insightful response.

Kheepe Moremi ,

You are welcome.

Experts are researching the lives and attitudes of everyday people so it goes both ways.

Thank you for the time and response Tatiana Zachariadou

Admittedlypeople have varying degrees of ability to properly solve for solutions. Most certainly wisdom is collective. However when one wants to experience the swamps, jungle, desert, mountains or ocean in it's most natural setting it behooves the visited to tap into the natives lived experience as expert survivalist in their own domain. It is the natural population who has the best interest of their environment which sustains their culture as rightful stakeholders versus heirarchal or capitalist stakeholders.

Very profound B.E.I. Johnson

"wisdom is collective..."

Yes, that's the only way to create alternative community governance from the bottom up. Federal gov should be a collaborative body of local representatives, not politicians.

Thank you for your time and input Tamara Swift

Yes ... and cheaper

I think that a large network is able to effectively solve any problems, provided that into it integrates tools for self-organization.

Thank you for your time and contribution Vladimir Rotkin . Much appreciated.

Yes. This statement is true for a certain class of tasks. Examples encompass: measuring the weight of bulls, estimates of the number of items closely packed in some container, estimates of poll & selection processes done by nations, estimates of market & stock market prices, etc.

Contrary to this, there is a well known red balloon challenge, several publicly visible balloons were hidden across the whole US. The reward was provided for the first who gave the location of all ballons.

This particular task became hybrid in solution. Scientists developed an algorithm that was provided to the community members, which found all balloons and got a share from the price.

Another example is 'six degrees of separation' solution to the task of sending a letter to a given address on the first name basis.

It is known that nature is capable to solve very complex problems using only very limited mathematics. This avenue of research immediately leads to massively parallel computations and namely to cellular automata solutions.

We know that MPC based models are able to use primitive local rules to say something about the global properties of systems. This astonishing capability of living matter is still highly underestimated. There is existing a growing community of researchers who are working in this direction. The task is hard to solve as the backward solution of the known global solutions towards the local rules is extremely computationally difficult while using only brutal force.

Thank you for a neat, elegant and insightful response Jiří Kroc

Net, there are expert solutions, crowd solutions and hybrids?

Thank you for your kind words. While re-reading my answer, one more important information seems to be missing. Agent-based models are a very suitable MPC model of tasks we are dealing with here. Yet another MPC tool can be complex networks.

Those approaches have a great future as a mathematical tool useable in the solving task we are dealing with in this class of problems. They apply bottom-up approach in solving problems. It encompasses self-organization, emergence, self-repair, etc.

Thank you once again for enriching the discussion thread Jiří Kroc

Yes I kinda agree, since they are average they'll take time to think and think better, and motivation will their ambition to be experts. The duration of execution of the task will be longer than when experts do it .

Thank you for your time and contribution Taiwo Alare

Thank you for your time and contribution Andreas Mämpel

If the answer is this way, then why does the person learn and develop his skill and reach what he calls an expert?