i guess that explains the landslides for gorton and van de kamp posted by pyramid termite at 10:09 AM on November 14, 2008
Summary
Decisions reached through consensus are often more accurate, because they efficiently utilize the diverse information possessed by group members [1], [2] and [3]. A trust in consensus decision making underlies many of our democratic political and judicial institutions [4], as well as the design of web tools such as Google, Wikipedia, and prediction markets [5] and [6]. In theory, consensus for the option favored by the majority of group members will lead to improved decision-making accuracy as group size increases [2] and [4]. Although group-living animals are known to utilize social information [7], [8], [9] and [10], little is known about whether or not decision accuracy increases with group size. In order to reach consensus, group members must be able to integrate the disparate information they possess. Positive feedback, resulting from copying others, can spread information quickly through the group, but it can also result in all individuals making the same, possibly incorrect, choice [8], [11] and [12]. On the other hand, if individuals never copy each other, their decision making remains independent and they fail to benefit from information exchange [4]. Here, we show how small groups of sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus) reach consensus when choosing which of two replica fish to follow. As group size increases, the fish make more accurate decisions, becoming better at discriminating subtle phenotypic differences of the replicas. A simple quorum rule proves sufficient to explain our observations, suggesting that animals can make accurate decisions without the need for complicated comparison of the information they possess. Furthermore, although submission to peers can lead to occasional cascades of incorrect decisions, these can be explained as a byproduct of what is usually accurate consensus decision making.
(CITATION, POPSCI MOTHERFUCKERS, DO YOU SPEAK IT? I am damn fucking tired of having to dig up articles based on scanty info like "was recently published in the Journal of..." or less. In this case, for example, the article is mentioned as published in the 13 November issue of Current Biology. Which doesn't exist. Note, even, that what I gave isn't really a proper citation, but this isn't MY JOB.) posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 10:17 AM on November 14, 2008 [4 favorites has favorites]
So they voted for the healthy fish? Is that what I read?
Did the sick one have a replacement waiting in the wings that didn't know Africa was a continent? Did they factor that in? posted by Astro Zombie at 10:24 AM on November 14, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]
suggesting that animals can make accurate decisions without the need for complicated comparison of the information they possess.
Some of the studies out there are just plain amazing. I've seen a real jawdropper recently, a bird getting his food out of a glass. Incredible. posted by iSimone at 11:24 AM on November 14, 2008
I always did say some people politicians are as intelligent as fish
Damn you Astro Zombie. You and the other bottom feeders are just trawling for laughs... and I bought it hook, line and sinker. posted by subaruwrx at 4:26 PM on November 14, 2008
Earlier this year, and possibly posted to MeFi, was a study of bees choosing a new hive location. Exploratory scouts were sent out, they returned wth their report, more scouts were sent to check out those locations, and eventually a group decision would be made that inevitably chose the best available location for the new colony. posted by five fresh fish at 4:28 PM on November 15, 2008
« Older
Oiligarchy...
| "I have never considered ...
Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Subscribe
posted by pyramid termite at 10:09 AM on November 14, 2008