Are 100 people smarter than 1?

Something I’ve been thinking about, but I don’t think I’ve said.  There’s a fundamental basis for most arguments for the collective society.  Every single one of those arguments start with the assumption that 100 people are smarter than 1.  It sounds like a great theory.  But it’s glossed over as being fact without ever being examined.

So… in theory, 100 people will produce a result that is better than 1.  But there’s a few problems with that theory.  The first is commonly found in team building exercises throughout junior high, high school, and college.  The average team does not produce the results of all team members.  The average team is led by one or two strong willed people and the just do the work.  Growing that larger, you will add a few more people, but the result will be the same.  Let’s say it’s 10 people out of 100.  So out of those first 100 people, only 10 are making actual decisions. 

Another logical problem with the idea that 100 people are smarter than 1.  What makes anyone the 10 that make decisions are the smartest in the group?  Nothing.  Remember, it’s not intelligence that makes the decisions in groups, it is force of personality.  The world is full of charismatic fools.  It’s also generally a giant Hollywood myth that all intelligent people are built like tanks and have strong personalities.  That’s not to say there are people who fit the Hollywood fantasy.  But we’re talking the average here, not the exceptional or the exception.  And most of what you are going to be dealing with is the average.

Another problem you run into is the Abilene Paradox.  It’s a paradox in which a collection of intelligent people end of doing something no one in the group wants to do.  I have a sister that has a degree in psychology.  She said the problem was groupthink.  The problem is how do you avoid groupthink?  In our discussion, the only real answer was strong personal accountability.  Not group accountability.  No the ability of the group of collectively decide it is doing something wrong.

What groupthink and the Abilene Paradox show us is that just because a group makes a decision doesn’t mean that decision is the best decision.  Group decision making can completely go off the deep end when it comes to moral or legal accountability.  Watergate was a good example of the Abilene Paradox in play.  Everyone that was a part knew they were doing something wrong, but no one said anything.  It’s also one of the major explanations for the extent of the Jewish Holocaust. 

And yet, despite all these arguments we will continue to see people arguing the brilliance of group decision making. 

Here’s another thought: do you hire people that are completely opposed to your agenda?   No.  After a while, you will have a collection of people who think like the person that hired them.  The entire group now has one general mindset.  With that general mindset, any decision they make is very likely to be in the same direction that any of the individuals would have gone.  It is also highly unlikely the group will ever go in the opposite direction.   So the groups’ decisions will probably be predictably in the same manner and the same method.

Unless the group seeks outside counsel, the decisions of the group will almost always be in the same direction because everyone in the group was selected for their similarities in belief. 

Once again, I’m going to say I don’t agree or think group decision making is the best way.  100 people are not smarter than 1.  The decisions made by 100 are not always better than the decisions made by 1.