Why cops should trust the wisdom of the crowds

[n2doc]

17 July 2009 by Michael Bond

THE protests that took place on the streets of London on the eve of the G20 summit in April lived up to many people's expectations. Around 2000 protestors turned up, and were heavily marshalled by police. There was a bit of trouble, but the police tactics - specifically, the decision to corral the entire crowd into a small area near the Bank of England, an approach known as "kettling" - kept a lid on the violence.

That, at least, is the official version of events, and it reflects a belief about crowds that is shared by police, governments and to a large degree the general public across the world: that they are hotbeds of trouble and must be contained. Trouble is seen as especially likely when something goes wrong at a large gathering. Under such circumstances, the expectation is that the crowd will lose its head and all hell will break loose.

The "unruly mob" concept is usually taken as read and used as the basis for crowd control measures and evacuation procedures across the world. Yet it is almost entirely a myth. Research into how people behave at demonstrations, sports events, music festivals and other mass gatherings shows not only that crowds nearly always act in a highly rational way, but also that when facing an emergency, people in a crowd are more likely to cooperate than panic. Paradoxically, it is often actions such as kettling that lead to violence breaking out. Often, the best thing authorities can do is leave a crowd to its own devices.

"In many ways, crowds are the solution," says psychologist Stephen Reicher, who studies group behaviour at the University of St Andrews, UK. Rather than being prone to irrational behaviour and violence, members of a crowd undergo a kind of identity shift that drives them to act in the best interests of themselves and everyone around them. This identity shift is often strongest in times of danger or threat. "The 'mad mob' is not an explanation, but a fantasy," says Reicher.

more:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327171.400-why-cops-should-trust-the-wisdom-of-the-crowds.html

[rfranklin]

1. It seems it is the police who usually lose control of themselves...

and have an irresistible urge to beat demonstrators. And often its the police agitators sprinkled through the demonstrators who help initiate that state of hysteria.

[pnorman]

2. "The Wisdom Of Crowds"---Here's some more on that seemingly counterintuitive concept:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds

pnorman

[qazplm]

4. like anything else

sometimes true, sometimes not.

We weren't very wise collectively in regards to many things throughout history. In other areas we have been.

In general, two or more heads are better than one, and speaking as an attorney in a group setting, going through moots is always good for refining and sometimes even completely revamping what one would have done with just their own thoughts, no matter how smart they are.

[pnorman]

5. That isn't what that OP was all about, nor that Wiki article either.

From Wiki: "Four elements required to form a wise crowd

Not all crowds (groups) are wise. Consider, for example, mobs or crazed investors in a stock market bubble. Refer to Failures of crowd intelligence (below) for more examples of unwise crowds. According to Surowiecki, these key criteria separate wise crowds from irrational ones:

Diversity of opinion
Each person should have private information even if it's just an eccentric interpretation of the known facts.
Independence
People's opinions aren't determined by the opinions of those around them.
Decentralization
People are able to specialize and draw on local knowledge.
Aggregation
Some mechanism exists for turning private judgments into a collective decision.

Failures of crowd intelligence

Surowiecki studies situations (such as rational bubbles) in which the crowd produces very bad judgment, and argues that in these types of situations their cognition or cooperation failed because (in one way or another) the members of the crowd were too conscious of the opinions of others and began to emulate each other and conform rather than think differently. Although he gives experimental details of crowds collectively swayed by a persuasive speaker, he says that the main reason that groups of people intellectually conform is that the system for making decisions has a systematic flaw.............................................................

That Wiki explains why I had described it as "seemingly counter-intuitive": "The opening anecdote relates Francis Galton's surprise that the crowd at a county fair accurately guessed the weight of an ox when their individual guesses were averaged (the average was closer to the ox's true butchered weight than the estimates of most crowd members, and also closer than any of the separate estimates made by cattle experts)"

I had read the book of that title a while back, and more recently have bought it as an Audible.com file for my pocket Media Players. Give it a try; either checking it out of the library, or buying it outright. You will NOT regret it.

pnorman ("The Wisdom Of a Crotchety Elderly Fart")

[qazplm]

10. yes I read the article

and the caveats swallow the rule as it were.

Crowds are wise, except when they start exhibiting very normal, human traits that usually occur when a group of folks get together.

[pnorman]

11. Those caveats are by no means arbitrary. The're just common sense.

That the pebbles greatly outnumber the gems, is (IMO) besides the point. The "point" is that ("counter-intuitively") there ARE such gems. Read that first example of Galton in Wiki, which was where the book began. He was an "Eugenicist", arguably a proto-"racist", and thereby unarguably an elitist. But he was dumbfounded that a group of "shit-kickers" were able to arrive at such an accurate answer.

I've been strongly influenced by anti-elitist, anti-aristocratic beliefs all my adult life (although Anarchist rather than Leninist), but I too was amazed when I first read that example. That indicates the pervasiveness of that elitist "Swinish Multitude" meme. Weren't you also a bit surprised?

I believe that there were several other striking examples cited in that book, but it's been a while. Later, I'll load it into my media player and give it another listen.

pnorman

[AlecBGreen]

3. Ive been to some pretty large concerts

65,000 in Vermont

100,000 in the Everglades

100,000+ in Tennessee

People for the most part act very well. Social, polite, clean, friendly, helpful... People jump dead cars, clean up trash, self-police confrontations, help those who've partied too much, give out food, you name it. Its always a heartwarming thing. It truly makes me remember that not all of humanity are blood-sucking parasites intent on getting money and power at all costs. In fact, most of us out there are just good people.

[pnorman]

6. I was more than a decade older than that "Woodstock crowd"

Moreover, being somewhat of the (priggish) "Old Left", I didn't really share it's "cultural values". But I recently got that Woodstock DVD, and it "blew my mind" (to use a phrase I'm not accustomed to use). That MAMMOTH crowd behaved exactly as you had described. I was also a close observer all during "WTO Week" in Seattle, and can attest that it was pretty much the same there.

It's such things that gives me HOPE for the Human Race

pnorman

[AlecBGreen]

7. who was it that said

(to paraphrase) a PERSON is a smart, intelligent creature. PEOPLE are dumb, panicky and dangerous.

seeing how people can come together in large groups and get along so well, I would disagree. Yet as a race, we are blithely ignoring the dangers of consumerism and our effect on the planet. as a large group (100k people) ive seen little but happy faces and kind words, rational behavior and compasision. what the heck kind of species are we? :crazy:

[pnorman]

8. I was referring to that "wise crowd", as in opposition to the "irrational crowd",

as defined in that Wiki article. Obviously, such crowds can't be scaled indefinitely, but I was greatly surprised that it seemed to apply to that "Woodstock Nation", as well as WTO Week in Seattle. The electricity of the latter lingered for MONTHS! "Strangers" would suddenly recognize each other (by button or other such insignia.) And then they (we) would stop and chat like old friends for quite some time.

There are quite a "counter-intuitive" examples of "wise crowds" in that book. Still skeptical? Get thee to the library and check it out.

pnorman

[Ready4Change]

9. My single bad crowd experience

The crowd, as a whole, acted stupidly. They were pressing the stage, creating a crushing hazard. People running the show announced that everyone should back away from the stage so people in front wouldn't be crushed. Otherwise they'd have to end the show.

I heard that and backed off. However I looked around and saw, all over the arena, tons of people filtering forward. Morons. :eyes:

So the people running the show cut the bands mikes and announced, again, to back away from the stage or the show would end.

Still people filtered forward. And some of those idiots started throwing plastic bottles at the stage. I saw that this was getting out of control started out of the arena. The mikes stayed off, the band left the stage, and some in the crowd junped up on the stage and started crowd diving. Brilliant. :eyes:

As I walked away I saw groups of riot police forming, and read in later reports that they had to use force to clear the crowd.

I have seen crowds act intelligently. But in this case I saw the exact opposite. I'm sure some of the crowd divers would make claims of police brutality, but in my mind they were asking for it.