“No one in this world, so far as I know, has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.” —H. L. Mencken
Mencken was wrong.
For all of us who consider ourselves 'experts' in something, it's tough to accept and a rude whack up alongside the head, but we're not all that smart. Any bonafide expert may be smarter than the average member of a crowd, but he/she is
not smarter than the crowd as a whole.
There are certainly ways to pervert that fact, but those pathologies don't change the fact. Given these elements, the crowd wins:
Diversity of opinion
Each person should have private information even if it's just an eccentric interpretation of the known facts.That's a given.Independence
People's opinions aren't determined by the opinions of those around them. Tougher to acheive, especially when the 'experts' all deride their 'lessers'.Decentralization
People are able to specialize and draw on local knowledge. Got that one, although the Internet actually doesn't help.Aggregation
Some mechanism exists for turning private judgments into a collective decision.Got that, too, as long as the voting machines work and the mail doesn't get lost.(see:
Surowiecki,
O’Reilly,
Hutton,
even Machiavelli (section LVIII)So, for those of the DU-sphere who have a problem with 'the sheeple', 'joe sixpack', 'xxx-bots' or 'xxxx-maniacs', lighten up. Yes, the hoi-polloi may get it wrong sometimes, may not have shiny discourse and argumentation skills and may not even write good, but they're smarter than we are. In the long run, the crowd wins, and that's a
good thing, and it's just about the
only thing that gives me any confidence in the long run.